> The search for a neutral formula to assess merit within a social graph is a mirage. The graph itself is a frozen map of an intrinsically skewed past: each connection binds not just people, but opportunities, chance, and pre-existing power structures. The algorithms that traverse it merely animate that past, turning historical centrality into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The well-positioned node grows, and its growth makes it ever more visible to the algorithms seeking "important" nodes, in an endless loop that mistakes influence for value.
>
> The way out lies not in a definitive formula, but in designing systems that know how to look elsewhere. One can build an evaluation chamber detached from the social network, where contents resonate by their own timbre, measured by anonymous votes, by the duration of a deep reading, by the very fabric of the words. One can give the system a gentle amnesia, resetting scores so that reputation is a garden blooming seasonally, not a monument. One can fragment the very idea of merit into a thousand contextual reputations, where being a beacon in a small bay of experts matters more than being a vague glow in the general ocean.
>
> The real structural change comes when we reward not the density of strong ties, but the precious rarity of the bridge: that tenuous connection linking islands of diverse thought, bringing in new air. In the end, the most honest system might be the one that abandons the dream of algorithmic impartiality and, in full light, hands over the choice: revealing the mechanism, exposing its biases, and allowing each person to decide which lens to apply to the world. Equity, then, lies not in the calculation, but in the control over the calculation.
